Unlike the ludicrous US system with a "written constitution" that basically means a handful of unelected people get to overide all laws and say they're just "interpreting" as they ignore the plain words, the clear intent or any other obstacle to their Imperial Decree, the Parliament is literally Sovereign.
So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID" and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority, for example the day after.
In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a government or they could say "No" and likely the populace has to do another election. Popular understanding was that British people hate elections, and so if you insist on another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray them (predictably)
So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022 "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole pointless mess.
Parliamentary sovereignty might be able to take on limits via some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few hundred years - it'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you would need for such a "counter bill".
The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.
So, if Parliament passes a Law tomorrow, miraculously by unanimous consent saying "The UK shall never have Digital ID" and insisting it denies itself any ability to make a law introducing such a thing - at any point it can also, despite that, pass law making a Digital ID by the narrowest majority, for example the day after.
In fact not so very long ago this exact farce played out. The Liberal Democrats were in a situation where they could either join a coalition with the larger Conservative party and form a government or they could say "No" and likely the populace has to do another election. Popular understanding was that British people hate elections, and so if you insist on another one they will punish you, the Lib Dems did not want that. But, they were concerned that the Tories would betray them (predictably)
So hence the 2011 "Fixed Term Parliaments Act". But although the Act says you can't just end parliament without a term ending, obviously Parliament can just pass a new law saying nah, changed our mind, which is what the 2019 "Early Parliamentary General Election Act" does and then the 2022 "Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act" undid the whole pointless mess.
Parliamentary sovereignty might be able to take on limits via some sort of tradition over a long period. For example perhaps if Parliament had stuck with that Fixed Term rule for a few hundred years - it'd settle as "Just how it is" and there'd be a serious argument that you can't just pass a law saying just this once as an exception we'll hold elections early. But "It was a few years ago" clearly doesn't cut it and that's what you would need for such a "counter bill".
The best you can hope for is a pledge by politicians, which is worth slightly less than a piece of paper you wrote it on.